Birth of a New Category or Beginning of the End of Categories?

Just when you thought there couldn’t possibly be another “ism” on the art world horizon, what with the growing accessibility of all art technique and technology rendering all the “schools of art” equally available and doable and therefore making impossible the dominance or even existence of any current art “movement” … comes “suggestivism,” the “ism” best summing up what art is in our lives today, defined more by what it is not, rather than what it is.

"Suggestivist" art is not slave to any one particular type of current art, from pencils to oils to photo-manipulation. It’s not about technology or technique.

It’s largely apolitical and need not promote any particular “message.” Whether defined by Sadakichi Hartmann (circa. 1900; the first to coin the term) as simply being a reaction to overly cerebral and insufficiently poetic art in all its forms, from canvases to literature, or by Nathan Spoor, a current artist and advocate, as a “process” by which the artist lets go of constrictive didactic narratives and dogmatic theories and lets the will of his or her muse take over so that truly poetic art can be created, whether that art “makes sense” or not. The artist allows the soul of his deepest artistic intuitions “suggest” what to create, without all the over-thinking. The artist can ponder the “meaning” of the vision produced later, along with everyone else. The one thing that “suggestivist” artworks have in common is that the viewer is encouraged (compelled!) to imagine his or her own interpretation of the piece. These artworks generally always have recognizable elements, but the real world ends there, as these elements are usually then twisted into the impossible conjunctures of mad dream logic. Suggestivist art can sometimes suggest the frightening and haunting, but usually the emphasis is on the playful and wildly unapologetically creative.

“Suggestivism” is as apolitical as our largely apolitical times, though usually informed with ambiguous political memes and imagery. It is an art for our times that does not ask to be analyzed and understood, but presents itself as a cipher or puzzle with no correct answer that commands attention none the less. Or it could be just the latest petulant reaction to a public perception of arts experts talking over our heads in their own secret language about what we should and should not like. Time will tell.

Perhaps the greatest thing about “suggestivist” art is the very fact that it is so... “suggestive.” It’s the ultimate resource for artists (pop & fine), musicians, writers, dancers or just dedicated daydreamers who feel a bit blocked. Re-charging the creative batteries only requires you spend a little time creating your own stories to fit the magical creations and constructions of these works, and one’s own inner engines of fantasy and whimsy will soon be sweetly humming again.

QuestionsFor the Reader

Should art be political or apolitical? Or do you think there’s room enough for both?

Do you sense there being any current “movement” in the arts world today? Is this a good or bad state of things?

Do you try to “figure out” an artist’s intent or message when looking at art, or do you simply decide whether you like or dislike each piece of art?

In your own art, do you try to transmit any sort of message, or do you concern yourself only with technique and aesthetics?

It takes two to tango when it comes to meaning creation. The context - the artist's circumstances, purposes and intentions - and the creative product itself has a role, obviously. But meaning is ultimately created in the viewer's mind . You get out what you put in.

Yes, some art has limited meaning - focusing on technical and aesthetic achievement. Nothing wrong with that. I can appreciate that type of art.

But I find that the art that moves me emotionally and makes an indelible impression on my memory is the art which has some special meaning to me (whether or not that meaning aligns with the artist's actual intentions). And the more relevant an artwork is, the more I will feed into it, analyse it, and I'll get even more out of it.

Finally I think that you almost always get the most meaning out of pieces that don't ostensibly TRY to create that meaning. Art that tries to create meaning just comes off as pretentious. You have to be subtle about it, not scream it in your face.

2. there has been a pull in the ways of art by technology (along with everything else in the digital age). i don't think it's necessarily good or bad, it's just the artist's preference.

3. when i first see the piece i usually just think whether i like it or not, but if i look at it for a bit then i usually start analyzing it.

4. when i create something, often i am telling a story in my head, or the picture represents something - whether it's something that weighs heavily on my mind or something i just recognized when i first started and decided to run with is just what comes out of it. sometimes i do draw something that just was an idea floating in my head to do.

1) There is definitely room for both political and apolitical art, that is the beauty of it. Art has the power to be in so many different categories and take on so many different meanings.

2) I do believe there is a movement in the arts world today in terms of technology. Electronic art tablets are replacing paper and canvasses. A lot of artists now paint and draw using computers. This is good for the fact that it is less messy and easier to store artwork but at the same I find making artwork without the computer more intimate.

3) I first decide whether or not I like an artwork and then I focus on how well the artist executed a technique in the work such as the use of brushstrokes. I rarely think about the artist's intent or message.

4) In a lot of my art I tend to focus on technique but when I feel strongly about something I do create art to send a message.

1. Art should be whatever the artist wants it to be. It is the art viewer (the masses) that decides if it worthy of recognition or not, worthy of a hmmm and a click or a Wow, and a serious study. I create because it makes me feel good, ME... I... and I could give two shits what anybody else thinks. As soon as you start creating for anyone or anything other than yourself, you are lost and I feel sorry for you. Any real artist will tell you that creating art with strict boundaries and rules is called a job that pays. There are the few lucky ones that get paid to create whatever they want but they are the 1% and they are living the dream. Unfortunately society is willing to pay for mundane art used to promote their ideals, product, etc... and only money is what gets all the other 99% of us to create stuff that we wouldn't create otherwise. So yes, there is plenty of room for both. By the way the strongest time of art "movement" fear, anger, suppression and trending was during the Nazi and socialist movements of history. One of the biggest determiners of democracy is a countries artistic expression. Look at history and you will see how socialism and dictatorships are tied to the limiting of artistic expression and the creation of huge "movements" that leave artists saying, "but what if I don't want to create like that". It is wonderful that we do not need to, or are forced to, create any political art.

2. Like fashion and most forms of expression, there are many venues for all types of art due to technology. This is a good thing for art, no more do we have to cow to societies trends and whims. There is less fear and shame in creating now than ever before. It is a wonderful state of things that there is no real current "movement" in the arts world today but rather hundreds of them.

3. Sometimes I try to figure it out and sometimes I just love it for what it is. Most of this "Suggestivism" art is forgettable because there is no point to it and it is confusing to try and figure out. For those that like to figure out stuff, a suggestivism painting is about a 30 second affair. For those that don't like to figure out stuff, well I think that's kind of depressing and sad really. I do see a ton of humor in suggestivism, but then that would mean there was a purpose and a plan. So maybe the joke is on the artist and this hilarious movement that makes me laugh and go WTF and move on?

4. I try to make art that pleases me, so yes and yes. Sometimes I just paint to create something aesthetically pleasing, other times to tell a story or illustrate my interpretation of a historical event or idea. This question is for those artists who have assigned themselves to a niche of art. If you create from your soul, because you just plain have to, then the "why" or "what" question really doesn't matter, does it. For those that like to corner themselves into niches, the "for whom" suddenly becomes very important.

If the precondition of great art or masterpieces is an advanced culture that needs a working class, then it follows that a working class who declares its existence unjust and reform that culture will not yield in any great artwork.

The social question where democrats who intend to liberate the masses and persuade them that everyone is dignified as well, will result in the masses perceiving their situation as a flagrant injustice and demand equity.

The masses hardly have any trouble noticing the gigantic gulf between their shitty circumstances and the glamor of high culture, and resent it because it's not for them. Moreover, they know all too well that the material precondition of their labor sustains that very high culture.

However, the crux is this: the claims to social justice/liberation from exploitation are unjustified.

Life is tragic where enormous suffering, death and cruelty abounds. There are two main options to the essential purpose of culture: the well-being of the greatest possible number of people or the success of individuals.

Morality argues for the well being of the greatest possible number of people.Aesthetics argues that the meaning of culture is within the apex of great works.

If only the creative people produce great cultural achievements in art, philosophy, sciences, then those achievements are the fruits of exploitative labor. sometimes those very creative people are themselves works of art as well.

These giants of culture aren't justified only by their social utility, but also by their distinguished existence. They embody the better possibilities of humanity. Therefore, culture is justified only if such highest examples live and create in them.

On the other hand, if the happiness & freedom of the greatest possible number is given priority, then the result is a democratic culture where mass taste reigns. The orientation of democracy is welfare, human dignity, egalitarian justice, and so forth -- all of them are impediments to prospects of great individuals.

The working class society is an example how refinement & culture relies on a stark, brutal truth. In order to have a fertile soil for artistic potential, the majority must be subject to the necessities of life in order to support a minority beyond their individual needs.

What is the problem with the dignity of work or humanity? Such glorification is self-deceptive because such dignity of work does not change anything about the fundamental injustice of life which already predetermines physical labor to some and creative work to the gifted.

Older societies were brutally lucid about their inequities, while our modern societies feign contrition but refuses to give up exploitation for the sake of culture.

If art justifies our existence aesthetically, it does so on the benchmark of cruelty.

In other words, existence is an open wound and every culture is essentially cruel. art offers a remedy -- as aesthetic justification -- by sustaining this wound. Workers sacrifice their sweat for the beauty of art. Then the existence of art adds on top of the injustice of existence.

If you are one of the privileged few that enjoys the aesthetic justification of existence, then you must be prepared to defend the working class.

Art is culpable, for it profits from the injustice of the world. In order to remove this guilt-ridden entanglement of art, we must destroy the basic elements of advanced cultures.

If we take the principle of equality, justice to their logical conclusion, we release unmitigated hostility on culture. Since art profits from injustice, those of us who enjoy the privilege of art must not lapse into arrogance. We must be cognizant of the relation between art and guilt.

The flip side of the coin: social progress is a threat to art. In the 20th century, art has been betrayed by a solidarity with suffering. In 1855, Henrich Heine predicted all of this:

"...with their red fists they are smashing all of the marble structures of my beloved art world... the shopkeepers hawking their goods will use my Book of Songs for shopping bags, to store coffee or snuff for the old wives of the future."

Tolstoy, in response to the social ills, stopped writing at the end of his life and demanded other writers to contribute to society in practical ways rather than making up stories. He was a precursor to the epoch of a great destruction of culture in the name of social progress.

Art ended up in a dilemma: be destroyed by social revolution or lose its dignity as an end in itself by selling out and conform to social utility. Either way, art became subjugated to social oriented movements or joined force and degenerate to politics.

Some would argue that art is an artifact of politics, for it must be a pedagogical tool of the masses. Others claim that the quality of art lies in its moral implications. Of course, I oppose them all: moral character does not dictate the aesthetic quality or the artist herself.

The artist stands before an empty canvas, a chunk of marble, with nothing planned in advance. She has no schema, a pattern when she begins to paint or sculpt. No previous decision determines the next movement of the brush, the jab of the chisel. The painting/sculpture is finished when she puts down the brush, the chisel, and declares that it is complete. The last line, the last polish is the one she chooses as the last act, the last contribution, the last grunt that gives birth to art.

The artist has no right to claim whatever is art, besides her own aesthetic standard. Art cannot and does not exist outside the specific choices of the artist, who creates the concept of art into the world with their specific work. Thus, the artist takes responsibility for the concept of art as a whole. She is stating what art means for everyone else as well. She creates the values, which are the only legitimate sort of values that evaluates her work.

Conclusion: there is no such a priori 'predetermining explanation' that defines creativity. Everything in art is ad hoc, and dependent upon the subjectivity of the artist. When she employs the concept of art, she is giving it a meaning for everyone else to see, to respond and/or criticize. This act resembles the 'intersubjectivity' of langauge that a concept of one's creation is available for everyone else to witness and comment on, agree/disagree, or attempt to elaborate on.

What a wonderful new category - political or apolitical? Yes, why not both?!? A current movement today? Hmm...I think 'Suggestivist' is very inclusive and could be a great landmark one for 21st century - I think my stuff could be included in this 'movement' - I personally really love the idea of observers contributing to what they see and 'suggestivist' art could be said to amplify this particular quality.. the creative capacity of an image itself so it can continue to grow after it's physically complete. A good or bad state of things?...hmm..not that experienced in this area.....To me, images always tell you something about the artist.....I hardly EVER concern myself with technique (mine is obviously totally rudimentary) to me it's the image that matters...but I'd love to learn more about technical stuff....

or you can just call it randomism.It's like a dream, they don't make sense. What irritates me about this genre is when people try to be all deep about it, it's like over reading your dreams, trying to find a meaning, when in fact it's just random memories and what we've been thinking about lately.

1. I think there is perfect enough room for all, and everyone has the right to create whatever they want. I may interpret this wrong, but political message has always been included, and always will be.

2. Yes I do sense a new form of movement, and good or bad, depends on how people see it.

3. I mainly enjoy the pieces that are created, and more of the "out of the box" thinking, rather than the inner, hidden messages. Plus personally, I am not skilled enough to "read" what it communicates, especially not in completely abstract artworks.

4. For me it's mostly the technique, and creative approach. If I want to do a complex artwork, I more aim to tell a story with it, rather then express hidden messages.

1) There is always enough room for both. Art is such a wide category that you will hardly find an "end" in whichever direction you embark on. Often the journey is so endless that an artist has a choice whether to carry on or just be content with one "kind". In either case, you will never see any perfection, because the fallacies themselves will complement what you gained in the journey.

That said, art has both influenced and led civilizations, and it has also remained apathetic to contemporary understanding -- all for the sake of going further than what the eye can see, or out of simple appreciation of what we have. I'm staunchly for apolitical, but art will hardly end there.

2) A don't think I sense a kind of movement, but I do know that the value of art has decreased immensely in the current times -- but that doesn't mean the appreciation of art has decreased along with it. Aesthetic skills has risen in various fields, and technology enables individuals to jump on-board affordably to create and produce, and the supply is so overwhelming that perhaps this explains the endless horizons of Art categories and its drop in value.

3) I merely decide if I like a current piece or not, but when I do, it is also because they inspire me. And if they inspire me, then it also means that I have understood or interpreted what the artwork might be showing me, or telling me. Majority of art is often emotional rather than analytical, and hence why my interpretations are driven from perceptive inspirations.

4) If you neither have a message nor aesthetics, then you're not creating art "properly". XD Doesn't matter if you're not trying to relay a message, because the moment you set your pencil to the canvas, it's already there! That one line you make on a blank sheet of paper tells precisely that. Every dot, every line, every speck is a message that speaks more than just what the art is about! It is then important for the artist to be conscious about every single stroke they make.

I believe putting a conscious effort in transmitting some sort of message is very impractical. However if one is inspired by a specific concept the reader/appreciator is free to interpret the piece however they see appropriate. Art can be anything you want it to be and anything it can be interpreted as.

1: I think art should always express something. Sometimes things are done purely just for the beauty of it all, yet still there is something behind it. To be art I think it has to be thought out in someway.

2: There is always an art movement. We may not see it, but future generations will. The fact that we can freely share all artwork from anybody with any background and any age is almost a movement in itself. But I really think it's annoying how someone can draw a squiggly line on a piece of paper and call it art and know one wants to disagree because "it may hurt their feelings".

3: Usually its something that catches my eye, that'll draw me to a piece of art (after all that's what art is about with painting, photography ect.). Then if it's got my attention for more than five seconds I'll try figure out why.

4: I think sometimes I do try and convey a message. Most of my work is mainly landscape photography and I try to just show simplicity and beauty.If I was smarter I would create amazing pictures with awesome messages. But I'm not so I don't.

I think this "suggestism" is surrealism with more in-your-face meaning than the dream like scenes it normally holds. It still seems rather dream like, right?

1. There is no "should" when it comes to art, but it's nice when art is apolitical because there probably won't be upsetting arguments about it. On the other hand, art can be used as a great tool to get people thinking about important issues.2. I guess I didn't notice that "suggestivism" was a new genre of art. When I saw pictures like the ones given as examples I thought it was just surrealism.3. I don't usually look for meanings, just enjoy the coolness.4. I think I'm still in the practicing stage, just working on techniques for now.

1- I think Art must be both. Art is always a mirror of what we see and feel around us in any fieldwe do art cause we want to reflect general or special case we experience

2-Often i can figure it out cause i believe that Art is mirror of his creator - & I can decide from first look I like or not cause I believe the first impression is always true

3-Although I only just amateur & I,m not professional but I don't do any art Only when I feel the desire & I see a vision in my mind what will be the work like in the end Or at least the Basic profiles And most important I Always feel that I need to work Before start designing or drawing new art

I think it's "bad", or untruthful, to think that anyother piece of art has no meaning or can have no meaning. Cause well just the fact that you are saying "this has no meaning" you are putting a meaning of "meaninglessness". I think though that we cannot "force" a meaning upon it. In the sense that we may guess the meaning but cannot affirm that really is the meaning. Freedom I guess.

1. If your Art is political, good job, fight the resistance. If your Art is apolitical that's cool, Artist's need not venture that far.

2. There is no such movement in Art today unless you call contemporary Art a movement. And no there needs be no movement for Art to exist.

3. Art is a form of communication, not exactly like commercialism where the message is one truth but the message in Artwork is that there is man truths.

4. If you call yourself an Artist and only looking at Aesthetics than you must be very arrogant. I am not as Ignorant as to ignore the meaning of the Artwork because it is there for you to think. What makes this Artwork great, what does the emotion and the colors interact so well and so on and so forth. So If you disagree with me, oh well I guess your just a would be Artist. If your artwork is great but lacks any story or emotion behind it than it is dull and static like most Art we have today. deviantART muro drawing

Seven years ago, trying to create a new ism myself, very similar to this one. I called it Anti-Iconism. Don't get me started about that, it wasn't very well thought out and I was just a kid. Didn't pay off. Now I'm bored and old.

1. It's in the eye of the beholder. 2. It's in the eye of the beholder.3. It's in the eye of the beholder. 4. It's in the eye of the tiger.

3. When I look at art, I believe it should speak to me and convey its message in the way that it was meant. If I get the feelings that it was supposed to portray, I feel connected to it and sometimes the artist. Even if I don't fully understand what the picture should mean [like many of these images], I get that there is some meaning behind it. So if there is no meaning, I guess I would be equally in tune to the artists' intent; and I would know that it's just a picture, and I could still admire it for that as well. I don't believe that art is a matter of all technique or "figuring it out". Art is about sharing important feelings and messages that are as much a part of people and this world, and even worlds beyond ours, without words.

4. I like for my art to be well presented in aesthetics, and I like for there to be a real meaning behind it. That's not to say I concern myself with stressing the importance of either one. I just decide what kind of thoughts/feelings/messages I would like to draw about that day, and then I draw it to the best of my ability. For me, I think no matter how its drawn, its easily shared with others through art. But even then, I like for it to look the best it can look, so that maybe the message can get across louder and clearer. :]

1) I'd say "art" is vast enough for both political works and apolitical works. Besides, no matter what anyone things, artists will continue to create both kinds.

2) Seems like this article is trying to claim a non-movement as a movement...art for art's sake, for fun and creativity as one vast "suggestivism". I think history will have a better lens with which to see if there are connections or there was a greater theme or 'ism' at work. I do agree fewer artists are trying to hold to one style or dogma but I don't see that as an art movement but rather a cultural shift.

It's not good or bad to my mind, though I don't personally care for much of the work shown with this article. It just is what it is. I'll discover the art I like, whether aesthetically or as a challenge to myself, and be happy. To each there own tends to be a good rule of thumb in the art world.

3) If I see a message, I see a message. I know I bring my own thoughts and feelings to a piece. Sometimes when commenting on what I see the artist says "exactly!". Sometimes they say "that's a new way to see it!". Sometimes I just like a piece for how it makes me feel or because it pleases my visual sense. All states are good by me.

4) I rarely deal with messages. I like to share beauty or capture a moment. If someone feels an echo of that beauty or the moment I show reminds them of one of their own, then that's wonderful. That's a communication between my work and the viewer, but I don't consider myself good enough or passionate enough to strive for that communication directly.

1. Art should be both. Art should be what the artist conves the art as.2. I normally look at the piece and say wether I like it or not. I don't belive that ALL art comes from past experience or what someone learned.3. Mainly, I worry about technique and how the product will look.

1. It definitely should be both. This style is all about being freely creative and true expression. There can't be stringent rules like it has to be political or it can't otherwise this style would be a contradiction.

2. I don't know if I sense a movement or not, but I do see MANY of these types of artworks and they really are my favorite haha.

3. I don't try to figure out a message persay, but I like to imagine a story.

4. I don't normally try to send a message, but I love to tell a story. I think art that can tell a story is the best kind.

I found this very intriguing. Although isms are often born of politics (in and outside of art), and although I myself have written my own share of politically inspired poetry/prose (that is, after all, where the muse took me), I feel that this term and description of "suggestivism" is free of burdensome ideology. It reminds me a lot of post modernism, but it seems more free in that it is less concerned with sending a message and more concerned with celebrating the art itself. Whether a lasting movement or a passing speculation, it should make people feel more comfortable with their own uncertainties in these uncertain times. Certainly an inspiring description nonetheless.

1- Room for both, for sure.2- One would think it is more easy for artistic movements to come together and mobilize in the information age...3- I don't try to over-interpret works of art. That's an art historian's job. I'm not a fan of art history.4- Aesthetics and technique, mostly.